"gbfmif" wrote in message
...

David Eduardo wrote:


Stop there. Adevertisers determine where ad money will be spent. When
station reps or sellers call, if they do not offer the target deemo,
they
are wasting their time.

thus the problem being identified. Just because the sales folks or ad
folks
ignore this demo today only seems that they will be replaced in not too
distant
future. Guess my point is follow the money.

The issue is not the money. It is how much ad cost per sale it will talke to
convince mature persons to change thier established and less fluid buying
patterns. So far, the bulk of advertisers have determined that the cost is
greater than the gain.

Very, very few advertisers use radio to reach 55+ consumers, whatever
their
income level. The main reason is a belief, backed by tons of research,
that
older consumers are more set in buying patterns and thus require much
more
advertising (repetiton) to be convinced to change.

can not argue with this on general principal - again - follow the money -
the %
of disposable $ very soon is not going to be teens but all of us old farts
as
the snake continues to swallow the elephant - just my opinion and your
test
obviously show I am dead wrong - but lets talk again in another 10 years
and see
what the deal is then :-)

At the risk of redundancy, it is not about income. It is about how many
impressions an ad has to make on a consumer before they will consider trying
a brand or changing from thier present brand.

Those who do target 55+ ususally use specialized magazines (AARP, for
example) and special interest publications (like travel magazines,
finance
magazines, etc.) since they are efficient in reaching 55+ persons.

So decide which side you are arguing - think these publications are doing
OK and
are increasing distribution and revenue (though I may just be old)

The difference is that these national publications are extremely cost
effcient with no spillage and can be target to travelers, hobbyists,
investors, etc. Radio is far broader.

You are an exceptional person in this group. A significant portion of
Americans reaching retirement age have savings under $100,000 (think it
is
90% plus) and will live on $1200 in monthly SS payments. Most retired
persons have extensive credit card debt, since they use the card to
finance
emergencies, and then gto for years paying it down.

OK - even if all us old farts are broke and deep in debt, the card
companies and
banks keep letting us buy, though I doubt these statistics as they apply
to the
present 50 to 60 age group, maybe for present 70+ folks your numbers
work - what
you got for the current 50 to 60 group?

50 to 60 is transitional. Social Security does not kick in before 62; ful
benefits are not available until age 65, the same age that Medicare
eligibility is established. However, there are many under-60 retirees who
have done 25 years in the military, some government services, etc... or have
been early retired. Most are on private or government pensions, and they are
still mature persons who have more established buying habits than the
younger adult demos.


Where you shop or how much you spend is not the issue. It is how much in
dollars per person an advertiser would spend to get you to quit buying
Metamucil at Wal-Mart and start getting it at Target. The conclusion by
most
is that changing life-long brand preference is more expensive to change
than
the profit on several years consumption of Metamucil, even if you use
really
heaping tablespoons full.

Again - this may be true today, but the elephant is getting to be toward
the
back of that snake and that elephant has lots of disposable $ compared to
a
current 15 year old population. I would think that at some point ad and
marketing folks would at least look at this reality. Or maybe I am just
old an
senile and unrealistic

When advertisers find the dollars at stake warrant a greater investment
based on greater returns, the ad targets will change. First, though,
manufacturers have to be sure ht9ier product targets this age via labeling,
sizes, appetite appeal, style, etc. as applicable.

Most ad dictates for anything except pure local retail come form a corporate
marketing level, not local.

"Walter Luffman" wrote in message
...
On 18 Aug 2003 14:22:40 GMT, "David Eduardo"

Very, very few advertisers use radio to reach 55+ consumers, whatever
their
income level. The main reason is a belief, backed by tons of research,
that
older consumers are more set in buying patterns and thus require much
more
advertising (repetiton) to be convinced to change. In most cases, the
increase in frequency is not worth the eventual sale. So 90+ percent of
ad
campaigns are not targeted at 55+.

Maybe you're right, maybe not. I wouldn't know, since I'm only 54.
But I watch the all-news cable channels instead of MTV, and most of
the commercials I see are for things that are marketed to my
generation. Same goes for the radio stations I listen to and the
magazines I read -- I choose the ones that meet my tastes, and they
are the ones advertisers use to reach me.

You are in the tail end of what in radio is called 'the sales demo.' When
you look at the specifications that ad agencies put on their buys, you find
that about 80% are for 25-54 or some part of this. The remainder is fror
12-24, 18-24 and a bit of 35-64 or 45-64.

That ads reach you does not mean you were specifically targeted. It just
means that the media you consume have efficiency in reaching the primary
demo advertisers usually want.

I may be an Old Fart (and proud of it!), but that doesn't mean I don't
still choose between McDonald's and Wendy's, or between Ford and GM,
or between Coke and Pepsi. AAMOF, I recently switched from Coke
Classic to Pepsi One. Needed a sugar-free alternative to the Coke
I've preferred all my life, and never cared that much for Diet Coke's
aftertaste. So I ignored brand loyalty and went with the product I
liked better. I suppose that means I can still be swayed by
advertising if I find the product itself suitable.

You are using principally anecdotal and personal cases. The studied
behaviour of 55+ and 65+ consumers shows a poor ROI on ad investment except
where the product has no past preferences, such as a product used only by
older folks.

Since these decisions are made by marketers at P&G and Ford and
Budweiser,
there is no way individeual stasitons or groups can possibly get through
at
that level... in fact, demographics were probably considered in procut
design.

I never said otherwise. But the radio stations I listen to generally
carry advertising that's aimed at adults, often at middle-aged and
older adults rather than young ones. Advertise anything you want on a
CHR station, I'll never hear it. Advertise Clearasil or The Gap on an
oldies or news-talk station, you're wasting money.

Yet there are many exceptions. Many non-ethnic CHRs get excellent 25-34
female numbers. News stations deliver comeptitive 35-54, even if half the
audience is older.

Those who do target 55+ ususally use specialized magazines (AARP, for
example) and special interest publications (like travel magazines,
finance
magazines, etc.) since they are efficient in reaching 55+ persons.

Tell me, what ISN'T a special-interest magazine?

The average medium US market has maybe 20 viable radio stations. The average
magazine rack has hundreds of magazines. That degree of specialization can
exist in a national magazine, which may pick up subscribers and readers in
tiny quantities locally, but is "massive" nationaly. Radio sells nearly all
its inventory locally, and can not be that specific. there is no "home
remodeling radio station."

You are an exceptional person in this group. A significant portion of
Americans reaching retirement age have savings under $100,000 (think it
is
90% plus) and will live on $1200 in monthly SS payments.

Incorrect. reread your own statement. Hardly anyone reaching
retirement age is receiving Social Security payments; it's those who
have actually reached the minimum age and who have also chosen to
retire (or those who are old enough to continue working while
simultaneously receiving SS) who receive Social Security benefits.
(And a few people like me receive Social Security Disability Income
benefits, but that's not the same as the retirement benefit.)

Most people define retirment age as the time SS kicks in... 62 or 65. while
a few retire earlier, the general definition is probably some vague place
between the late 50's and 60's.

Most retired
persons have extensive credit card debt, since they use the card to
finance
emergencies, and then gto for years paying it down.

Not the retirees I know. They pay off their cards every month, and
have ever since they figured out how much of their debt was due to
interest and other charges.

Anecdotes again. It may be online, but Smart Money had an article on
retirement savings about 3 months ago. In it it showed the average savings
of the retirement-age American. And the amount of debt, both revolving
credit and mortgage debt. Most folks in their 60's have scant savings,
considerable debt and not a lot of maneuvering room.


Perhaps when you're older you'll understand that a lot of advertisers
do recognize the economic clout of the Baby Boom generation and target
us through our "specialized" media.

You are making assumptions again. How old do I have to be? How old do you
assume I am?

"Walter Luffman" wrote in message
...
On 18 Aug 2003 14:22:40 GMT, "David Eduardo"

Very, very few advertisers use radio to reach 55+ consumers, whatever
their
income level. The main reason is a belief, backed by tons of research,
that
older consumers are more set in buying patterns and thus require much
more
advertising (repetiton) to be convinced to change. In most cases, the
increase in frequency is not worth the eventual sale. So 90+ percent of
ad
campaigns are not targeted at 55+.

Maybe you're right, maybe not. I wouldn't know, since I'm only 54.
But I watch the all-news cable channels instead of MTV, and most of
the commercials I see are for things that are marketed to my
generation. Same goes for the radio stations I listen to and the
magazines I read -- I choose the ones that meet my tastes, and they
are the ones advertisers use to reach me.

You are in the tail end of what in radio is called 'the sales demo.' When
you look at the specifications that ad agencies put on their buys, you find
that about 80% are for 25-54 or some part of this. The remainder is fror
12-24, 18-24 and a bit of 35-64 or 45-64.

That ads reach you does not mean you were specifically targeted. It just
means that the media you consume have efficiency in reaching the primary
demo advertisers usually want.

I may be an Old Fart (and proud of it!), but that doesn't mean I don't
still choose between McDonald's and Wendy's, or between Ford and GM,
or between Coke and Pepsi. AAMOF, I recently switched from Coke
Classic to Pepsi One. Needed a sugar-free alternative to the Coke
I've preferred all my life, and never cared that much for Diet Coke's
aftertaste. So I ignored brand loyalty and went with the product I
liked better. I suppose that means I can still be swayed by
advertising if I find the product itself suitable.

You are using principally anecdotal and personal cases. The studied
behaviour of 55+ and 65+ consumers shows a poor ROI on ad investment except
where the product has no past preferences, such as a product used only by
older folks.

Since these decisions are made by marketers at P&G and Ford and
Budweiser,
there is no way individeual stasitons or groups can possibly get through
at
that level... in fact, demographics were probably considered in procut
design.

I never said otherwise. But the radio stations I listen to generally
carry advertising that's aimed at adults, often at middle-aged and
older adults rather than young ones. Advertise anything you want on a
CHR station, I'll never hear it. Advertise Clearasil or The Gap on an
oldies or news-talk station, you're wasting money.

Yet there are many exceptions. Many non-ethnic CHRs get excellent 25-34
female numbers. News stations deliver comeptitive 35-54, even if half the
audience is older.

Those who do target 55+ ususally use specialized magazines (AARP, for
example) and special interest publications (like travel magazines,
finance
magazines, etc.) since they are efficient in reaching 55+ persons.

Tell me, what ISN'T a special-interest magazine?

The average medium US market has maybe 20 viable radio stations. The average
magazine rack has hundreds of magazines. That degree of specialization can
exist in a national magazine, which may pick up subscribers and readers in
tiny quantities locally, but is "massive" nationaly. Radio sells nearly all
its inventory locally, and can not be that specific. there is no "home
remodeling radio station."

You are an exceptional person in this group. A significant portion of
Americans reaching retirement age have savings under $100,000 (think it
is
90% plus) and will live on $1200 in monthly SS payments.

Incorrect. reread your own statement. Hardly anyone reaching
retirement age is receiving Social Security payments; it's those who
have actually reached the minimum age and who have also chosen to
retire (or those who are old enough to continue working while
simultaneously receiving SS) who receive Social Security benefits.
(And a few people like me receive Social Security Disability Income
benefits, but that's not the same as the retirement benefit.)

Most people define retirment age as the time SS kicks in... 62 or 65. while
a few retire earlier, the general definition is probably some vague place
between the late 50's and 60's.

Most retired
persons have extensive credit card debt, since they use the card to
finance
emergencies, and then gto for years paying it down.

Not the retirees I know. They pay off their cards every month, and
have ever since they figured out how much of their debt was due to
interest and other charges.

Anecdotes again. It may be online, but Smart Money had an article on
retirement savings about 3 months ago. In it it showed the average savings
of the retirement-age American. And the amount of debt, both revolving
credit and mortgage debt. Most folks in their 60's have scant savings,
considerable debt and not a lot of maneuvering room.


Perhaps when you're older you'll understand that a lot of advertisers
do recognize the economic clout of the Baby Boom generation and target
us through our "specialized" media.

You are making assumptions again. How old do I have to be? How old do you
assume I am?

This is very interesting. I might ask my station rep from Clear Channel
who's big in my area. She's easier to talk to than the rep from the "dollar
a holler" CHR station in the bottom of the TV studio.

I don't think we can assume there is a homogeneous 25-54 age set. We can
cleave it in half at age 35 or 40. But don't sell oldies short; they are
still in demand.

I wish that these morons at the stations would find out that it isn't
microcasting any more than it was buying listeners with contests a la the
Eighties. What Rush Limbaugh says (and I agree) is that we need more fun
media personalities. Music is great but the older end of the 25-54
demographic wants someone fun.

I am biased in this arena as I collect airchecks and operate an aircheck
station at live365.com. But darnit it's true; some of us want something
besides a wireless MP3 jukebox (which is what radio's become). And people
are getting burned out on slender playlists too.

Another problem is a lack of decent new music coming out. We are trying to
get the baby boomers' kids to listen and they unfortunately like the rap
crap and commercialized alternative nonsense. Thus we are ignoring older
people also likely to spend money. I am 37 btw.

Let's return to good old Top 40 (or if not, CHR) radio and its wonderful
disk jockeys. That may be a hidden secret not many want to exploit.

Thanks
Ken
Macon, GA
--


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
http://mail.giantcompany.com


"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...
"Walter Luffman" wrote in message
...
On 18 Aug 2003 14:22:40 GMT, "David Eduardo"

Very, very few advertisers use radio to reach 55+ consumers, whatever
their
income level. The main reason is a belief, backed by tons of research,
that
older consumers are more set in buying patterns and thus require much
more
advertising (repetiton) to be convinced to change. In most cases, the
increase in frequency is not worth the eventual sale. So 90+ percent of
ad
campaigns are not targeted at 55+.

Maybe you're right, maybe not. I wouldn't know, since I'm only 54.
But I watch the all-news cable channels instead of MTV, and most of
the commercials I see are for things that are marketed to my
generation. Same goes for the radio stations I listen to and the
magazines I read -- I choose the ones that meet my tastes, and they
are the ones advertisers use to reach me.

You are in the tail end of what in radio is called 'the sales demo.' When
you look at the specifications that ad agencies put on their buys, you
find
that about 80% are for 25-54 or some part of this. The remainder is fror
12-24, 18-24 and a bit of 35-64 or 45-64.

That ads reach you does not mean you were specifically targeted. It just
means that the media you consume have efficiency in reaching the primary
demo advertisers usually want.

I may be an Old Fart (and proud of it!), but that doesn't mean I don't
still choose between McDonald's and Wendy's, or between Ford and GM,
or between Coke and Pepsi. AAMOF, I recently switched from Coke
Classic to Pepsi One. Needed a sugar-free alternative to the Coke
I've preferred all my life, and never cared that much for Diet Coke's
aftertaste. So I ignored brand loyalty and went with the product I
liked better. I suppose that means I can still be swayed by
advertising if I find the product itself suitable.

You are using principally anecdotal and personal cases. The studied
behaviour of 55+ and 65+ consumers shows a poor ROI on ad investment
except
where the product has no past preferences, such as a product used only by
older folks.

Since these decisions are made by marketers at P&G and Ford and
Budweiser,
there is no way individeual stasitons or groups can possibly get
through
at
that level... in fact, demographics were probably considered in procut
design.

I never said otherwise. But the radio stations I listen to generally
carry advertising that's aimed at adults, often at middle-aged and
older adults rather than young ones. Advertise anything you want on a
CHR station, I'll never hear it. Advertise Clearasil or The Gap on an
oldies or news-talk station, you're wasting money.

Yet there are many exceptions. Many non-ethnic CHRs get excellent 25-34
female numbers. News stations deliver comeptitive 35-54, even if half the
audience is older.

Those who do target 55+ ususally use specialized magazines (AARP, for
example) and special interest publications (like travel magazines,
finance
magazines, etc.) since they are efficient in reaching 55+ persons.

Tell me, what ISN'T a special-interest magazine?

The average medium US market has maybe 20 viable radio stations. The
average
magazine rack has hundreds of magazines. That degree of specialization can
exist in a national magazine, which may pick up subscribers and readers in
tiny quantities locally, but is "massive" nationaly. Radio sells nearly
all
its inventory locally, and can not be that specific. there is no "home
remodeling radio station."

You are an exceptional person in this group. A significant portion of
Americans reaching retirement age have savings under $100,000 (think it
is
90% plus) and will live on $1200 in monthly SS payments.

Incorrect. reread your own statement. Hardly anyone reaching
retirement age is receiving Social Security payments; it's those who
have actually reached the minimum age and who have also chosen to
retire (or those who are old enough to continue working while
simultaneously receiving SS) who receive Social Security benefits.
(And a few people like me receive Social Security Disability Income
benefits, but that's not the same as the retirement benefit.)

Most people define retirment age as the time SS kicks in... 62 or 65.
while
a few retire earlier, the general definition is probably some vague place
between the late 50's and 60's.

Most retired
persons have extensive credit card debt, since they use the card to
finance
emergencies, and then gto for years paying it down.

Not the retirees I know. They pay off their cards every month, and
have ever since they figured out how much of their debt was due to
interest and other charges.

Anecdotes again. It may be online, but Smart Money had an article on
retirement savings about 3 months ago. In it it showed the average savings
of the retirement-age American. And the amount of debt, both revolving
credit and mortgage debt. Most folks in their 60's have scant savings,
considerable debt and not a lot of maneuvering room.


Perhaps when you're older you'll understand that a lot of advertisers
do recognize the economic clout of the Baby Boom generation and target
us through our "specialized" media.

You are making assumptions again. How old do I have to be? How old do you
assume I am?